Political Risk:
Low
Score:
70/100
Defence and Security Policy and Policy Transparency
Q1
83/100
Is there formal provision for effective and independent legislative scrutiny of defence policy?
View Question
Australia is a federal parliamentary constitutional democracy [1]. The federal Parliament has the exclusive Constitutional power to legislate, including by approving and vetoing laws,…
Explore
Parliament regularly debates and reviews defence policy, however, though Parliament has the formal authority to review and approve major arms procurements and defence policy,…
Explore
Independent legislative scrutiny is guaranteed through bipartisan Parliamentary committees that critically address aspects of legislation, and institutional mechanisms which prevent (former) members of the…
Explore
Q2
71/100
Does the country have an identifiable and effective parliamentary defence and security committee (or similar such organisations) to exercise oversight?
View Question
Parliamentary committees are made up of members of the House of Representatives or Senators (or, in the case of Joint Committees, a mix of…
Explore
Out of 32 members of the three Australian Parliament committees that deal with defence, only 9 have any experience in the defence sector (Country…
Explore
The Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade issues its own annual report on the Defence Annual Report, which outlines major defence…
Explore
Based on information in the Parliamentary calendar, defence-related committees do meet at least monthly for public hearings and inquiry report tabling when Parliament is…
Explore
Though the defence-related Parliamentary committees can, in theory, be referred any matter by Parliament or the Minister to inquire on (see Q2A), in practice,…
Explore
While it is unclear whether the Department of Defence fully implements recommendations by defence-related committees since there is no independent follow-up mechanism for parliamentary…
Explore
Q3
81/100
Is the country’s national defence policy or national security strategy debated and publicly available?
View Question
The major Department of Defence strategy paper is the Defence White Paper, which has been consistently publicly released in successive iterations since 1976 [1].…
Explore
Particularly at the think-tank level, as reported in the media, the debate around defence strategy is wide-ranging. Analysts and the media urge the Government…
Explore
Formal public consultation on defence strategy takes place through public submissions to parliamentary inquiries on aspects of defence strategy and the formal consultation process…
Explore
The current Defence White Paper process involves releasing a defence issues paper, which is a discussion paper used to inform expert and public consultation…
Explore
Q4
50/100
Do defence and security institutions have a policy, or evidence, of openness towards civil society organisations (CSOs) when dealing with issues of corruption?
View Question
Policies of openness to CSO involvement in discussions of corruption in defence take the forms of formal consultations in Parliament, complaints to defence and…
Explore
Legal protections are generally good for CSOs in Australia, but recently passed legislation and reports of “an atmosphere of fear, censorship and retaliation” has…
Explore
As mentioned in Q4A, openness to CSOs and NGOs does occur in the operation and disaster relief area of the defence sector and in…
Explore
Q5
88/100
Has the country signed up to the following international anti-corruption instruments: UNCAC and the OECD Convention?
View Question
Australia has signed and ratified both the UNCAC (ratified December 2005) and the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention (ratified October 1999) [1]. Australia is currently the…
Explore
Reviews of Australia’s compliance with UNCAC and the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention indicate that Australia has been proactive in both facilitating outside reviews and following…
Explore
Q6
100/100
Is there evidence of regular, active public debate on issues of defence? If yes, does the government participate in this debate?
View Question
The public debate around Australian defence issues is robust, regular, and active. The topics publicly discussed are wide-ranging, they are discussed in depth, and…
Explore
The government engages actively in debates on issues of defence, through regular engagement with the media, civil society, think tanks, and academia. Department of…
Explore
Q7
25/100
Does the country have an openly stated and effectively implemented anti-corruption policy for the defence sector?
View Question
In the 2015 edition of the Government Defence Anti-Corruption Index (GI), the then-Country Assessor could publicly access the Defence Fraud Control Plan and interviewed…
Explore
This indicator has been scored ‘Not Applicable’ because Australia does not have a (publicly stated) anti-corruption policy for its defence sector (see Q7A).
Explore
Q8
83/100
Are there independent, well-resourced, and effective institutions within defence and security tasked with building integrity and countering corruption?
View Question
The Department of Defence has an internal Audit and Fraud Control Division (AFCD), which is constituted of the Audit Branch, which performs internal audits,…
Explore
The First Assistant Secretary Audit, at the head of the Defence Audit and Fraud Control Division, reports directly to the Secretary Department of Defence,…
Explore
The Defence Audit and Fraud Control Division (AFCD) are able to carry out audits/investigations and give recommendations, run awareness campaigns, and give training, but…
Explore
Q9
NS/100
Does the public trust the institutions of defence and security to tackle the issue of bribery and corruption in their establishments?
View Question
This indicator is not assigned a score in the GDI. The public’s general trust in the Australian government, including with respect to their efforts…
Explore
Q10
42/100
Are there regular assessments of the areas of greatest corruption risk for ministry and armed forces personnel, and are the findings used as inputs to the anti-corruption policy?
View Question
While Defence is required to carry out regular fraud risk assessments in line with the Commonwealth Fraud Control Framework 2017 [1] and the Public…
Explore
As elaborated in Q10A, Defence is required by the Commonwealth Fraud Control Framework 2017 [1] and the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Rule 2014…
Explore
According to the Commonwealth Fraud Control Framework 2017, referring to requirements under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Rule 2014 [1], “fraud risk assessments…
Explore
Defence Budgets
Q11
67/100
Does the country have a process for acquisition planning that involves clear oversight, and is it publicly available?
View Question
After a major overhaul following the First Principles Review [1], the Department of Defence has put into place a more streamlined acquisition planning process…
Explore
While the Business Framework for the Capability Acquisition Sustainment Group [1], Defence Procurement Policy Manual [2], Commonwealth Procurement Rules [3], Integrated Investment Program (IIP)…
Explore
External oversight is carried out primarily through the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO). The ANAO carries out three types of performance audits on defence…
Explore
Q12
75/100
Is the defence budget transparent, showing key items of expenditure? And it is provided to the legislature in a timely fashion?
View Question
The defence budget is passed as several Acts of Parliament, which are publicly available and provide a top-line overview of how much money is…
Explore
In Australia, the financial/budget year begins on 1 July. The Appropriation Bills, Budget Papers, and Portfolio Budget Statements are all tabled on Budget night,…
Explore
Q13
75/100
Is there a legislative committee (or other appropriate body) responsible for defence budget scrutiny and analysis in an effective way?
View Question
The Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade (JSCFADT) and Parliamentary Committees on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade (PCFADT) have the right…
Explore
Because of the way the budget process is structured in Australia, by the time Budget night arrives and Parliament can scrutinise specific proposals, the…
Explore
Q14
50/100
Is the approved defence budget made publicly available? In practice, can citizens, civil society, and the media obtain detailed information on the defence budget?
View Question
The approved defence budget is fully published in the formal Appropriations Bills, while specific expenditures are explained and contested during Parliamentary debate, disaggregated and…
Explore
The vast majority of the Defence portfolio budget does appear to be released publicly, though not in much detail, through the measures mentioned in…
Explore
Concerning freedom of information generally, the Australian government has been accused by media, civil society, and even politicians of being reluctant to make documents…
Explore
Q15
83/100
Are sources of defence income other than from central government allocation (from equipment sales or property disposal, for example) published and scrutinised?
View Question
Defence income is fully reported in the Defence Annual Report and Portfolio Budget Statement (PBS), and sources other than central government expenditure are marginal.…
Explore
The Auditor-General, assisted by the Australian National Audit Office, is required to audit annual financial statements issued by Defence, including declarations of income [1].…
Explore
Perhaps as a function of the fact that non-central government sources of funding for Defence are relatively marginal compared to the overall Defence budget,…
Explore
Q16
50/100
Is there an effective internal audit process for defence ministry expenditure (that is, for example, transparent, conducted by appropriately skilled individuals, and subject to parliamentary oversight)?
View Question
The Defence Audit and Fraud Control Division (AFCD) and specifically its Audit Branch are active, although its level of expertise and respect for its…
Explore
Defence carries out internal audits on defence expenditure, including on sensitive issues such as corruption and fraud control. These are reflected in the Defence…
Explore
Because internal audits are generally considered classified and at the very least non-public, only the external auditor that has systemic access to this kind…
Explore
Whether the ministry addresses internal audit findings in its practices is unclear, given that internal audit reports are entirely non-public [1], only rarely released…
Explore
Q17
69/100
Is there effective and transparent external auditing of military defence expenditure?
View Question
The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) has the formal authority to and regularly carries out audits on defence, including performance and financial audits. The…
Explore
The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) is independent of the executive and is sufficiently insulated from external pressure, though the selection process of the…
Explore
The full final reports of defence sector performance audits are made available by the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO), though these are sometimes missing…
Explore
The Department of Defence tends to respond to ANAO reports by agreeing with the majority of recommendations, but long-standing problems with timeliness and completeness…
Explore
Nexus of Defence and National Assets
Q18
67/100
Is there evidence that the country’s defence institutions have controlling or financial interests in businesses associated with the country’s natural resource exploitation and, if so, are these interests publicly stated and subject to scrutiny?
View Question
While Australia’s defence institutions would have little incentive to participate in businesses relating to natural resource exploitation due to policy restrictions on competition with…
Explore
There is no evidence in media reports [1] or in expert opinion [2] that defence institutions have financial interests associated with natural resource exploitation.…
Explore
Individual reserve and active-duty defence personnel face strict limits to their ability to be involved in work outside of defence service, and must declare…
Explore
This indicator has been scored ‘Not Applicable’ as there is no evidence that Australia’s defence institutions have controlling or financial interests in businesses associated…
Explore
This indicator has been scored ‘Not Applicable’ as there is no evidence that Australia’s defence institutions have controlling or financial interests in businesses associated…
Explore
Organised Crime
Q19
88/100
Is there evidence, for example through media investigations or prosecution reports, of a penetration of organised crime into the defence and security sector? If no, is there evidence that the government is alert and prepared for this risk?
View Question
There is some concern about military personnel being members of or engaging in outlaw motorcycle gangs (known as bikie gangs in Australia), but there…
Explore
The government is aware of the problem of organised crime in Defence, and there is strong evidence that it is working to prevent and…
Explore
Q20
75/100
Is there policing to investigate corruption and organised crime within the defence services and is there evidence of the effectiveness of this policing?
View Question
The Australian Federal Police has a Fraud and Anti-Corruption business unit which hosts a Fraud and Anti-Corruption Centre, a multi-agency initiative which counts the…
Explore
The Fraud and Anti-Corruption Centre (FACC), hosted by the Australian Federal Police [1], appears to be independent of the Department of Defence, though it…
Explore
Though organised crime is generally well-monitored by defence institutions (see Q20A), there has been some criticism of the volume of bribery and corruption cases…
Explore
Control of Intelligence Services
Q21
100/100
Are the policies, administration, and budgets of the intelligence services subject to effective and independent oversight?
View Question
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS) has a mandate and matching powers to investigate the policies, administration, and budgets of intelligence…
Explore
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS) and Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security (IGIS) are active and generally transparent. The Parliament Sitting…
Explore
Q22
100/100
Are senior positions within the intelligence services filled on the basis of objective selection criteria, and are appointees subject to investigation of their suitability and prior conduct?
View Question
Senior positions in Defence are subject to clear and objective selection criteria, which flow from a requirement in relevant legislation to hire based on…
Explore
The Australian Public Service Act 1999 [1] and Australian Public Service Commission rules [2] and guidelines [3], which recruitment in the intelligence services is…
Explore
Australian government recruitment is done through a selection panel process, which for senior positions is required to include a representative of the independent Public…
Explore
Export Controls
Q23
75/100
Does the government have a well-scrutinised process for arms export decisions that aligns with Articles 7.1.iv, 11.5, and 15.6 of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT)?
View Question
Australia signed up to and ratified the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) on 3 June 2014 [1].
Explore
Australia seems to be complying with Articles 7(1)(b)(iv), 11(5), and 15(6). Australia has a robust process in place for arms export control. Parties that…
Explore
Parliament has the formal authority to scrutinise and block future defence exports as part of its wider power to scrutinise ([1, 2], see Q2A),…
Explore
Lobbying in Defence
There are two main legal and ethical frameworks around lobbying that apply to Defence personnel: the government-wide Lobbying Code of Conduct [1], Statement of…
Explore
There is no national government requirement or Defence policy or requirement to provide information about lobbying meetings or public conflict of interest risks that…
Explore
While Australia does have a lobbyist registration system, it includes only basic information about lobbyists, is complied with at only the most basic level,…
Explore
There appears to be little compliance with lobbying legislation and policy, weak oversight and lack of communication about obligations within government, and no sanctions…
Explore